Skip to main content

View Diary: Steve McMahon (171 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Good On You Mate (none)
    so have I.

    But you are mixing apples and oranges, volunteers and hired guns - and the subject was hire guns...

    but point taken and appreciated.

    •  You are pretty mixed up as well... (none)
      Politics just can't be done that way, certainly not in the current political climate in the US.

      It's certainly not how FDR did it -- those guys were all believers, they just knew to pick smart, effective believers, and there's plenty of them.

      And if you're a principles-is-for-sissies kind of guy and don't believe in all that ends vs. means stuff, it's still just plain stupid and innefective -- or maybe even more so: the Republicans have consistently defeated Democrats by always being willing to go one step further in the nastiness.  A consultant who is compromised with the other side, and expecting future contracts from the other side, simply cannot effectively manage a campaign in this environment.

      --
      Blogs will matter when we act locally: Local Diaries on Daily Kos.

      by miholo on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 01:07:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hm, I don't agree (none)
        The one time Bush got knocked back on his heels was by Cindy Sheehan--who did what she did based on pure principle.

        Martin Luther King, Jr., was another principled opponent of "business as usual" who wouldn't have agreed with the ends justifying the means--which is why he eschewed using violence to obtain his goal.

        You cannot obtain just ends through unjust means.  All of history teaches this.

        History also teaches us that people don't really learn much from history...because they keep doing the same stupid shit again and again.

        Ask yourself:  HOW are you going to say "the Democrats are more principled than Bush" if the Democrats throw principle out the window just to win?  Going for "the win" without considering the means breeds cynicism in the political process and takes away the BEST issue we have--that we are BETTER than the other side.  

        Better meaning more just, more fair.  We can fight hard, but decently, and win.  In fact, a principled fight--upholding what's moral, what's good, and what's legal and Constitutional--is our only hope.

        •  Huh? (none)
          I assume it's not with me that you are disagreeing?...  That's not too different from what I said.

          --
          Blogs will matter when we act locally: Local Diaries on Daily Kos.

          by miholo on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 04:13:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You cannot obtain ends through unjust means (none)
          is just about the silliest thing I've heard all week.

          Endearing, but silly.

          Come get lost in our world: www.politicsandletters.com

          by MonkeyDog102 on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 07:22:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, Gandhi and Dr. King (none)
            were silly assholes.  Henry David Thoreau and John Lennon, too.

            Endearing, but silly.

            •  please.... (none)
              I think non-violence is a beautiful thing, but to say that immoral means never lead to positive ends is just not true. Its a nice thought, I guess, but it isn't the case.

              Sorry.  

              Come get lost in our world: www.politicsandletters.com

              by MonkeyDog102 on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 07:58:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you mean we can't have war (none)
                ...then you're wrong.

                Even the Dalai Lama has said there can be such a thing as "just war" and so did Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologicae.

                But you have to remember that the United States is NOT at war--politics is NOT warfare.  

                In warfare, the object is to totally demolish and destroy your enemy.  You subjugate him.

                In politics...well, just remember that after an election is over, whoever wins will have to govern those who voted for the losing candidate and you will all have to live with each other.  Honestly, I don't think the US ever fully healed the wounds left over from its own bloody civil war, and that was 140 years ago!

                So consider the tactics you are using to "win"--or have you never heard of Pyrrhic victory?  

                •  The Civil War? (none)
                  Are you saying that abolishing slavery wasn't a moral advance?

                  The C.W. is the perfect example of how really screwed up, even down-right evil, means can lead to results that are clearly ethically and morally desireable. Try and win an election based on calling for a return to slavery - 140 years later, and we have thoroughly eradicated that argument from the national conversation.

                  Sorry. Ends sometimes do justify the means.

                  Come get lost in our world: www.politicsandletters.com

                  by MonkeyDog102 on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 02:13:02 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site